Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

"Wikipedia:Topic bans" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Topic bans. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 22#Wikipedia:Topic bans until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error in list

The entry about the ArbCom-imposed unblock conditions for SethRuebens are incorrect. It should read:

SethRuebens is unblocked subject to a (1) one-account restriction, (2) a ban from directly editing Britannia (TV series), and (3) a requirement to disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uhooep

The recent unblock conditions imposed on Uhooep (talk · contribs) (motion) hasn't been listed yet. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA request filed

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 9. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request removal of outdated restrictions.

Hi. I was unblocked well over a year ago by Voice of Clam without any editing restrictions after it was noted here that various admins had been discussing my unblock (as well as some possible restrictions), but as you can see Miniapolis and OhKayeSierra supported my unblock, resulting in the unrestricted unblock message you saw on my talk page from VOC. However, some old past restrictions for an outdated unblock from over 3 years ago remain posted on this page where I was supposed to be monitored by 5 albert square, North8000, and Betty Logan, but I think all of those users will say those restrictions no longer apply, and that none of them has expected to perform any of that type of monitoring for those restrictions since my unrestricted unblock by VOC over a year ago. I'm requesting this outdated information be removed because it gives the false impression that I'm still under some kind of restrictions when I have not been for more than a year. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can also see here in my unblock log that I was unblocked over a year ago with no restrictions, so please remove the outdated data. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'm just noting here for any passing editors that my comment was strictly in regards to the block. I don't have an opinion one way or the other on whether or not the editing restrictions should remain, and my comments in the unblock discussion didn't take into account the editing restrictions in place. As a bit of friendly advice to Huggums537, I would say that if you truly wish to have your editing restrictions lifted, this isn't the way to do it. I suggest you start by having a discussion with the users you pinged about it and then starting a wider discussion at WP:AN or a similar noticeboard. Removing editing restrictions needs input from the wider community. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. However, I don't think me, or any of the monitors have felt any restrictions have been in place for over a year now. My reasoning for this is that part of those old restrictions included not editing policy pages, but my old monitors from the other block, and people such as SMcCandlish who knew about those old restrictions allowed me to participate in some policy discussions right along with them without any of them saying anything about any old restrictions. I think this is very strong evidence that neither myself, nor any of the old monitors figured any restrictions pertaining to a different block would still be in effect after me being unblocked without any current restrictions. I agree with N8000, and would like to hear from 5as, about this as well, because they have apparently not currently been monitoring me about any old restrictions either since I have not heard anything from them about me participating in policy discussions in the year I've been editing. As far as I was concerned, I was unblocked without any restrictions, and able to edit freely. It seems fairly obvious to me that the old monitors and other editors took it that way also. Huggums537 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got the ping. This is a somewhat confusing situation as to whether the old ones are still in force but either way it needs to be dealt with that they are listed here. The older editing restrictions were conditions on the older unblock. As I recall Huggums was later blocked for a reason unrelated to those items and IMO that sort of made the old ones no longer applicable. I've not watched Huggums closely but have seen them in action recently several times and all seems calm and well. Perhaps the simplest thing to do would be for the admin who placed the older restrictions 5 albert square to consider the officially removing them whether or not they currently exist. I think that the following is unnecessary, but if 5 albert square cares to do this I'd agree to watch Huggums closely for 30 days and advise 5 albert square if I think that there are any significant issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems completely reasonable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I would like to add about this is that I knew about the problem right around the time I was unblocked, and had every intention of asking someone why this wasn't removed after I was unblocked without any restrictions. However, I put it on my watchlist as something to do later since my focus was on doing what I promised I would do, which was working on drafting my first article, and one thing led to another with me getting busy involved in other projects, as well as building my user page until I eventually just forgot about asking someone. But, recently I was going through my watchlist, and saw the page there reminding me that I still need to ask someone why the notice has not been removed. Except, now more than a year has passed since asking myself that question, and it makes even less sense for it to be posted now than it did back then because not only is it still here when I have no restrictions, but now I need to ask someone the new question of why is it still here when it is also true that none of those old monitors have even been monitoring me for any of those old restrictions or any other edits of mine for that matter? Hopefully, I think people can understand the logic of why I'm saying it no longer makes any sense for the notice being posted. It seems to me that if there were any evidence whatsoever of those old restrictions being enforced such as a warning for me not to discuss policy pages from any of my old monitors, or anything at all of that nature, then I would not be here asking for this point blank removal, but there is nothing at all like that. Again, this strongly suggests that I was all in good company when I first thought I was free to edit without any restrictions on the second unblock over a year ago. I would very much like to hear from Betty Logan since she was also named as a monitor, and I feel her say is very relevant here. Also, I'm eager for a response from 5as since she was not only just a monitor, but also the admin who made the conditional unblock. So, her input is likely more relevant than any other. I hope 5as will take all this into consideration if they decide to follow the suggestion of N8 and SMC above, and lift the outdated notice. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like 5 albert square has been a bit less active. their last edit was 2 days before my ping above. It also appears that it's been about 3 years since they interacted with Huggums537. Perhaps someone can just interpret these as gone/moot and remove? I'd still do as I offered above. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just pinged 5as off-wiki alerting them to this discussion. They've indicated they will take a look tomorrow (UK time). Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for doing that. There's really no rush seeing as how these old restrictions have been sitting here going unnoticed, unenforced, and really uncared about by anyone for over a year anyway. I think N8000's idea they can easily be interpreted as gone/moot/rendered null really applies no matter which way you care to look at it, but thanks again for the help. Huggums537 (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that as a potential "simple way out" way to view it. IMO the technical situation is unclear and I didn't say otherwise. Either way I suggest removing it. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been less active recently as I'm recovering from shoulder surgery. I would be OK with these being removed if North8000 monitors Huggums537 for 30 days 5 albert square (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I hope you recover soon. Thanks for agreeing with N8000's idea. So, do we now have to wait for an uninvolved editor to remove them, or can just anyone remove them since we have the blessing of the admin who placed them there to remove them? Huggums537 (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think N8's suggestion is clear that if 5as first have removal of the posting, then he would continue to watch me for another 30 days beyond that even though it would not be needed in his opinion. The reason I think it is important to clarify this distinction is because I want to make sure any potential uninvolved editors who might be reading this understand that the correct interpretation of this discussion is that the terms were clear and everyone agrees with them. Huggums537 (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll start the 30 days (details in my offer above) when the restriction is removed from the list. I'll be watching this page, but if somebody could ping me to be doubly sure, that would be cool. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, North. I hope everyone will be patient, and understand about me being cautious regarding the devil in the details. I think it's extremely important we all agree about the same thing being done here since my past experience has taught me that I probably could have saved myself long years of being blocked if I just pay closer attention to the devil in the details. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that 5 albert square (5as), as the admin who imposed the sanctions on Huggums537, is happy for them to removed subject to the following condition: North8000 will monitor Huggums537 for 30 days (day 1 being the day the restrictions are formally removed) and advise them (5as) if there are any significant problems. If there are significant problems during the 30 days, 5as (or another admin?) may reinstate some or all of restrictions as appropriate. If at the end of the 30 days the restrictions have not been reinstated and there have been no significant issues reported, North8000 will formally note that here, and Huggums537 will henceforth be subject to no editing restrictions and no specific monitoring.
If others agree my understanding is correct then I suggest the restrictions can be removed (by anyone uninvolved) and the 30 day clock started in 24 hours or so. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Huggums537, North8000, and 5 albert square: It's been well over 24 hours with no objections, so I've struck out the restrictions on the main page (I decided that was clearer than removing them) and noted the monitoring there. At the end of the 30 days the whole entry can be removed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, and confirming that I'm starting what I said for 30 days. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Now, to save myself some time in the future, anyone including myself can remove the restrictions any time after North makes the 30 day formal notation here, correct? I just want to save myself from having to come back here, and beg for someone else's mercy to give me a response on whether they can be removed then or not. At that point, I should no longer be at the mercy of when, or if someone else will respond to removing since it will be obvious the terms will have been fulfilled at that point. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can remove entries after they have expired, as at that point its just keeping the table clean. Whether restrictions are listed here makes no difference to whether they can be enforced - active ones can, expired ones can't. I'd suggest for the sake of appearance you not rush to do it the instant they're over, but if nobody else has done so after several days then feel free. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks for the advice as well. Huggums537 (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I monitored for 31 days. Editor has been active including in the subject areas with zero issues. I removed the entry. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone! Huggums537 (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Batch of ancient editing restrictions never logged here

I've run into about a half-dozen cases of editors being topic banned (mostly by ArbCom) that were never logged here as they were banned before this page existed. The bans are ancient but still active. Their bans were instead logged on the talk pages of the topics they were banned from. I'd like to remove the documentation on those talk pages, as I'm trying to clean up/remove uses of the messagebox class (see MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do for background). For reference, these are the ones I found:

Elerner banned from Talk:Eric Lerner, Talk:Aneutronic fusion, and Talk:Plasma cosmology (Pseudoscience remedy #7a)
DarrenRay, 2006BC, and AChan banned from Talk:University of Melbourne student organisations and Talk:University of Melbourne Student Union (DarrenRay and 2006BC remedy #1)
Asmodeus and DrL banned from Talk:Academic elitism, Talk:Crank (person), Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, and Talk:Christopher Langan (ScienceApologist remedies #1 and #4)
Kven banned from Talk:Kven people (Kven remedy #3)
GuardianZ and Skinny McGee banned from Talk:Midnight Syndicate (Midnight Syndicate remedy #1)
KyndFellow banned from Talk:Sex tourism (Sex tourism remedy #1)
Richardmalter banned from Talk:BDORT (Yoshiaki Omura remedy #1)
ZoeCroydon CBANned documented at Talk:Clive Bull

Is there any issue adding them here? Izno (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before doing so we should see whether adding them is necessary. For example, 2006BC and AChan are blocked as socks of DarrenRay; Kven is not registered here (user:Kven~enwiki has only a single apparently unrelated edit here; Kven has three at Commons) and ZoeCroydon is indeffed as a sockpuppetteer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake with Kven, that would be Art Dominique/Steve Wondering according to the talk page. Izno (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly though, I have no idea what the inclusion criteria for this page are (presumably active sanctions at a minimum), hence the talk page note. I have no particular concern for one end result or another. Perhaps the majority of these are best suited to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive, which I just caught at the top of this talk page. Izno (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having not looked through any of these (yet), I would say that we should determine if these sanctions are still viable:

If yes:
- Convert the specific-page restrictions to actual partial blocks
- Log them here
- Remove the logs from the talk pages
If not (i.e. for indeffed users etc)
- Chuck them in the archives so that if they do return they'll be restored by the bot.

Primefac (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so since this is the right place, I will go ahead and remove them from the talk pages and ya'll (page watchers) can sort out what you want to do with logging here. Izno (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party here. I basically invented the archive, it is indeed the place for listings where the user is long-term inactive but the restriction is still in place. I kinda quit paying attention to it. It's a pain to maintain, it was supposed to get automated but that somehow did not work out.There's also stuff in there that doesn't belong there at all, like restrictions that have actually been lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expired sanctions

Some lists of sanctions include several sanctions which have expired, including Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Archive/Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee which will need to be remediated by an Arbcom clerk, and many remain in the list even after they havve expired. I am opening a request at WP:BOTREQ to have a bot automatically remove expired sanctions from the table. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section

Just now I had difficulty finding the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Protection policy". I think a link to that other article should be included in this article. The last line of this article seems to say that users should NOT add material at the end. Therefore, I'm placing it at the beginning. I think this information should be in this article someplace. I think it would be better at the end. However, if that's not feasible, then at least put it someplace. The beginning seems to me to be a second-best choice. Thanks DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you would be on this page and attempting to get to the protection policy, but it's not really all that related to editing restrictions. I do understand you are operating in good faith, but I do not think it is necessary to include your see also section and have thus reverted you. Primefac (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing bluelink required for context

Smallbones's topic ban entry from Robert Prechter should link to Robert Prechter's article. Actually, we should have similar links for all notable topics covered in a topic ban. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So... add it? Primefac (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at VPI

There is a discussion at VPI that relates to this page. BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AldezD

I would like to have my interaction ban with User:AldezD expunged, as he left wikipedia about six months ago. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction bans are generally appealed at WP:AN. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

How to appeal a restriction

Please advise how I request the lifting of the indefinite topic ban restriction imposed in September of 2022. The last thing I want to do is to offend people by posting this request improperly. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most appeals are typically made to WP:AN for most restrictions(unless imposed by ArbCom, which must be appealed to ArbCom) 331dot (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far, there has been only one response to my request, and I feel that response mischaracterizes the violations that had been reported. Is it a violation of proper form for me to respond to that description? In the absence of any other responses, will that single vote result in a denial of my appeal? Fabrickator (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may civilly respond to other editors. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error at WP:AEDR

The entry for Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs) is missing the username field. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed [1]. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moot?

Apparently, user:Abd has died; as such, is there any point to keeping the Abd/William M. Connolley interaction ban on here? DS (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a two-way ban, meaning that neither one can discuss the other (barring the usual exceptions), even if one is dead. Connolley is welcome to make a request at WP:AN to have it lifted should he so choose. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iimitlessyou restriction

I reverted this edit as I broke the table (Thanks @Bugghost for flagging!) and I have no idea how to fix it. Their topic ban remains in place and I'd very much appreciate any help in logging it properly. Thank you! Star Mississippi 20:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you didn't break the table? You just had an extra --> in there. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh good. @Bugghost was reporting that second half of the page has been moved into a cell on iimitlessyou's table row. which I assumed was my error. Thanks for restoring it for me @Primefac Star Mississippi 12:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... I guess there could have been something that got weird when it was transcluded (and I'm not saying that Bugghost didn't see anything) I just didn't find anything immediately obvious. Odd. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem was that in SM's edit the final |} of the table was removed (the edit just ended the table with } instead) which meant the table wasn't "closed", so when the table was transcluded into WP:ER the rest of the article was visually placed in the table, rather than after it. Either way, looks like it's all fixed now! Bug Ghost 🦗👻 13:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that would do it. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]